27.1.05
Libruls' Fault
Yet another soul-searching, liberal-indicting Op-Ed today, this from Paul Starr in the NYT. Key passage:
Oh wait, that's not true at all. Over the last 25 years, liberals' preferred candidates have gotten smacked down by the establishment/moderate/etc. wings' candidates in the primaries every single time.
Observe:
1980: Ted Kennedy
1984: Gary Hart
1988: Jesse Jackson (no guff about Dukakis actually being a liberal - he was not)
1992: Tom Harkin/Bob Kerrey/Paul Tsongas/etc.
2000: Bill Bradley
2004: Howard Dean
Not that all of those guys were liberals, but those were the candidates who got liberals' support in the primaries. And none of them were the nominee. Instead, each time (though perhaps not quite enough in 2000), liberals fell into line as they loyal foot-soldiers of the Democratic Party, burying their own issues in pursuit of the election of the Party's candidate.
I'm not saying we need to nominate liberals. What I am saying is: REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, STOP FUCKING BLAMING US FOR FUCKING EVERYTHING UP, OKAY?
Thank you, please come again.
...liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied party that can win at the polls? The latter, it seems clear, is the better choice.Yes, since over the last 25 years liberals have really been driving the agenda of the Democratic Party, and losing presidential elections with their preferred candidates.
Oh wait, that's not true at all. Over the last 25 years, liberals' preferred candidates have gotten smacked down by the establishment/moderate/etc. wings' candidates in the primaries every single time.
Observe:
1980: Ted Kennedy
1984: Gary Hart
1988: Jesse Jackson (no guff about Dukakis actually being a liberal - he was not)
1992: Tom Harkin/Bob Kerrey/Paul Tsongas/etc.
2000: Bill Bradley
2004: Howard Dean
Not that all of those guys were liberals, but those were the candidates who got liberals' support in the primaries. And none of them were the nominee. Instead, each time (though perhaps not quite enough in 2000), liberals fell into line as they loyal foot-soldiers of the Democratic Party, burying their own issues in pursuit of the election of the Party's candidate.
I'm not saying we need to nominate liberals. What I am saying is: REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, STOP FUCKING BLAMING US FOR FUCKING EVERYTHING UP, OKAY?
Thank you, please come again.
perma-linky posted by jkd : 10:22
Comments:
<< Home
When I was younger I used to assume that people rose to positions of influence and prominence because of ability. I used to think, "hey that guy gets paid to think about politics and tell me about it, there's a good chance he knows what he's talking about." Years later, turns out.... not so much. The idea that the failure of the Democratic Party is traceable to intransigence from ideologically pure liberals is horseshit. Or rather it's whatever item horseshit finds as objectionable as we find horsehit. Now, I don't propose we nominate Dennis Kucinich. But accomodationist efforts have simply neutered the message. The image that springs to mind is of a raft...when floating in shark infested waters, offering the sharks your remaining food in order to satiate them isn't wise. But then apparently wisdom doesn't get you anything these days.
Post a Comment
<< Home
